it would be bloody. .. so, i mean, they should be some consistency. so i agree with the ambassador. at least it's a wakeup call to

consistency. basically the west and the united states and germ anyway, if they are on -- you are on the right side of the history, i tend to agree and it's our problem that we cannot cope with the modern world. the russian problem. but in -- you might call it technical terms or in day withs day term -- day-by-day terms there should be more responsibility and consistency in the west. not necessarily do something but if you are not prepared to do, don't say you are. >> we haven't solved the ukraine issue. but i want to move on to something that the ambassador put on the table, which is that if we want to get to audience questions -- as -- what does this mean? this a really fundamental term

or shift in the relationship of nato with russia? are we going to say this is one of those hinge points? >> well, the -- depend on what russia does. it takes to to tango, obviously, but from any point of view, is a said before, we don't want to close doors. we kept the nato council operational and still want to cooperate with russia as soon as we can men circumstances allow and dealing with all the oglobal challenges hike afghanistan or counterterrorism where we're constanting with-dos you're talking about to departmentalizing -- >> the point i'm trike to make here in the start run we have no -- short run we have no choice but to face the challenge. so, yes in the short term, deterrence and reassurance, if

you like, defense of europe, that has to be the authority. but we are mindful here at nato that the world is not going to stop because of the ukraine problems. we don't have, if you like, any less chaos in syria or problems in the middle east, terrorism spreading across north africa, these things are still with us, so, yes, we have to deal with this issue of reassurance to the baltic states and we still have to work with our partners -- >> prime minister, prime minister, what would you -- >> carry on as well. so we have to be a security organization, which is big enough and grown up enough as with several problems at once. >> what too you think, mr. prime minister, this means in terms of where nato goes from here and dealing with russia? >> we --

>> we didn't solve or come up with a solution to ukraine. >> afraid we not go beyond the decision -- we already taken by nato, and there's no good answer without finding out, what i said before. we cannot simply neglect. we cannot forget about the fact that already took -- and this is very misfortunate. i generally need in the need to work together closely with russia. that we share a lot of common interests, and i believe that the present russian policy is suicidal, against the interests of russia, and i would like to overcome that situation. but unfortunately, there are some conditions that must be done by them. they have to get out of ukraine. have to stop interfering with

domestic affairs of other countries. you should not forget that in europe we have elaborated regular layings, procedures, guaranteeing the rights of minorities in council of european and so on. russia has -- should good to european institutions in russian speaking minorities, et cetera. but as i said, we cannot accept the actual situation in ukraine and i do not know what is the solution for that, because mr. putin announce historical new doctrine and it's sending back will -- stepping back will me failure, and -- also to address ordinary russians, to make something to change the

chauvinistic view by the population. they should understand at it always ended in total catastrophe of the states and the nations. >> you wanted to jump in here. >> i think we have in historical precedent. you look back in terms of periods of tension between nato and russia and it was most serious during the conflict in former ewing slav ya and during the -- yugoslavia and during the russian-georgia war. there were discussions all over the capitals in europe and the united states and russia, that we may have got -- returned to a cold war or be returning to another cold war. we managed to move past those periods because of a vast array of critical shared security interests. ukraine is more serious. this is more difficult situation. the stakes for russia, for one thing-are much greater in the ukrainian case. but i'm hopeful and when i hear

jamie shea say we need to pursue this consult tatetive bodies and the nato-russia council to engage and work through these problems with russia. russia's position in europe and global security is critical. i think they are major power, and it's important that we understand some of the other major strategic issues that are at stake in this relationship, in arms control in counterterrorism, weapons proliferation, regional conflicts, the future of the circumstances in the middle east and the continued outcome from the revolutions taking place in that area, and if we have the united states, europe, and russia, working in a competitive or enemy sort of approach in dealing with those situations, i think it could be very grim for the future. so. it's worth trying. it won't be easy. we should expect setbacks but we have to keep, i think, long-term vision and not look at this in's

just in terms of short term and immediate. i don't think it's in interest of our nations to see the return of the colored war. >> i'm not hearing anyone would use the term containment. i'm hearing elements of that. for instance, that europe should diversify its energy sources. that ways be found to not need russia so much. what would you say to that, ambassador? do you think something fundamental is happening here? i say this with no disrespect, another georgia situation where after a year or so we look the other way and move on. it's just not top of -- >> maybe we didn't take events in georgia seriously enough. but that is a question also for historians to take a look at. my own view is that what we are seeing is a policy of revisionism. that is what you call that.

placing in question what is. essentially i learned that there are two kinds of leaders. in the world. so, there's one category of leaders that takes what is and tries to create a better future. good example of that is yu of singapore. if german leaders postwar had behaved or were behaving now in the way the current russian leadership is behaving, we would still be fighting with poland, we would be fighting with france, and we would claim that some polls who speak german are actually germans and do deserve the protection of the mayoran armed forces if something happens in poland we don't like. i mean, this is chaos.

this is awful. so i'm not one who is going to try to minimize the dimensions of the problem that we're facing. but i also totally agree with kozarov, i hope everybody listens hundred he speaks about how important consistency is. consistency is very close to credibility, and whatever we say has got to match with what we do. i totally agree with you. i think, in response to your question, what about nato? well, we are going to need to take a fresh look at how important the core function of nato is to our countries. the core function in the collective defense has gotten more or less forgotten a little bit because we thought it was no longer really necessary. we used to say germany was surrounded by friends and

everything is wonderful. obviously we need to take a fresh look because o'land is our immediate neighbor, part of our club, our union, and pole -- pollland has a bored irwith ukraine and if there's chaos in ukraine and beyond it affects our very own security and that of all of nate at the and the i as well. so, yes, i think there must be a comprehensive review of our priorities, both in the e.u. and in nato, but let's not do it, if i may say so with foaming at the mouth. let's do it cool, and let's do it also, always, in -- with having in mind consistency. >> on that thought we're going to questions from the audience. if you just briefly give your name and affiliation. you know the rule, a question, not a statement. >> thank you.

from george washington university. we talked about in april of 2008 the nato summit decided to not extend membership action to ukraine and georgia, and within four months georgia was invaded. with hindsight, the word wisdom has been subpoena number of times today. is it your view that things in -- not to extend protection to ukraine and georgia unwise? >> just to get to all the questions does one want to volunteer to take that -- we lost jimmy shea. i'm sorry. they're replacing the call. but -- well -- >> i'll take that. i can take that question.

>> actually, jamie shea, tide you hear the question? >> i did. and i -- i did, yes. >> i'm going to ask everyone to give a brief answer because we have a lot of hands up. was it a mistake not to take in georgia and ukraine in 2008? >> well, no. again, you can't take in countries that are not ready for membership and georgia and ukraine were then and still now still in preparation for membership, and that work continues. what nato has not done in the wake of the crisis is, first of all, lift the offer to georgia on ultimate nato membership if georgia meets can bees. but you're putting ukraine and georgia together is wrong. ukraine is not seeking nato membership, even in the present crisis, it has not renewedy for nato. russians were talking about nato

as actually seeking to have ukraine as a member. that's not the case. we're working with georgia but this is a deliberate process in preparation that has to go through. no. i don't believe that the nato decision was the reason. unless russians at the time, president putin, but -- some kind of alibi or justification or some kind of smoke screen to simply carry out -- which were already there. it's a very -- it's a good excuse but whether that's the real strategic motivation i have my doubts. >> right here, sir in the red and blue tie. >> thank you. i'm benjamin, a retired american diplomat. my question goes to ambassador's opening remarks in which he talked about the dire consequences of not having had nato expansion.

it seems to me that that suggests a lack of confidence in the ability of the west to muster sufficient economic assistance and investments to integrate and develop economies of eastern europe with the countries of the former soviet union. that seems to me the real tragedy. wouldn't you agree? and your emphasis on massive economic assistants for ukraine now, means that we learned the lesson, but perhaps a bit late. thank you. >> do you want to comment on that? >> i can give very brief. yes, i would tend to agree with you, and mind you, i don't speak on behalf of the german government here. don't -- i don't want to be misunderstood. i speak as a private citizen.

i believe we did not pay enough attention to, also financially and economically, to the challenges of our eastern neighbors. we should have probably acted long before russia started to think about crimea or long before the maidan began to explode about how to help stabilize a country that has had a history now for two decades of not really making its way forward as we were hoping to. what was the other part of the question? >> i think -- [inaudible] >> okay, i think -- >> so, the gentleman in the blue sweater. >> the question is on the 25th 25th of may, we will have the european election. on the second day ukraine are

supposed to have the referendum -- >> and presidential election. >> how do you think we could help them just to have free elections in all of ukraine with this situation? >> if i may. >> ey. >> believe we can do very little about eastern ukraine because, of course, the security situation will decide about the possibility to have any kind of elections there or not. in my opinion one of the targets of intervention, not to have elections at all, than to have the kind of pretext to question the results of elections in general. but in the rest of ukraine, there would be a lot of observers from european

institutions, and they can expect fair elections. >> yes, right here, the gentleman and then the lady behind him. >> hi, i'm iris committees on eastern europe and russia and nato. minister, when you first became foreign minister of the russian soviet federated social socialip lick, you laid out your plan so if the soviet union were unfortunately to break up you would prevent it from becoming a nuclear yugoslavia and i was stunned that you could imagine to achieve peace in such conditions, and i was more stunned you did achieve it. i think the entire world and the russian people owe you a great

debt of gratitude for that achievement and you are not as honored as you well-deserve and history should note your important role, especially now when mr. putin is beginning to assume the role of the milosevic and undo the tremendous work you did for your people. that's not my question but die think you deserve that honor and appreciation. my question is about the lack of connected with words you brought up. mr. gorbachev when he was still president was discussing the unification of germany, and i'm not going to talk bet myth we promised nato would never move east, and ambassador matlock already refutessed that. it's a high. but gorbachev raced the notion should they become part of nato and the was pooh-poohed. and then james baker later regretted that and said he should not have done that. he should have engaged gorbachev on that question. one of the first acts of the

yeltsin government in december 1991 was to raise the question of nato membership. the foreign ministry later said it was a mistranslation but foreign ministry officials assured me at it was a true traps layings. they had to withdraw because it became a political embarrassment for yeltsin and you permanently. i wonder how much damage has bun done with our lack of -- with russia. >> first of all, i cannot agree more on your statement. thank you so much. [laughter] >> and secondly, i agree with the assumption of your question, yes. that's where i technically agree

and cede the point of president putin when he says that we had -- what was it -- unclear. i would put it in a way, if you read my message, somebody publishes my memoirs, you'll find it -- i am pro western in terms i want russia to become a western democracy, not only russian lead going to london or miami, but in -- as a diplomat and practitioner, i met with a lot of confusing signals from nato all the time, and even prime minister said, that's very interesting. the prime minister said they believe that partnership for peace was instead of membership. if they believed that in poland how much in russia in kremlin,

are especially hardliners, tended to believe it when so-called declaration was signed by my successor, who was, of course, old kgb hand, and still is, and he -- i mean, by that time everything was lost. every opportunity. the window was closed. for the west. but he believed that when he signed this fig leaf declaration of nato-russian partnershippin' 1997, 1998, which nato applauded for, he actually came home and said publicly that they promised him that under the declaration was the promise of nato not to expand to former soviet space. that is baltic states.

so, president putin, who still has him as his advisor, he tended to believe that he was deceived by the declaration. there is no -- we could not find any record of any promises to gorbachev that nato would not expand, for instance to eastern germany. we could not find -- member somebody find it but we have no record. we had no record of that. but gorbachev apparently seems to believe still today that he had such a promise, and president yeltsin believed he had the promise and they detail how he was led to believe that, that partnership for peace was instead of nato-not a first step, which i knew because

delbert and christopher and my western european colleagues, spent time to explain that to me. while they failed to tell that to president putin -- to president yeltsin at that time. that brings me back to my point. it's not enough for the west to be on the right side of history. it's important, but they should speak in clear terms. that's what russians deserve. that's what putin deserves. that is what russian parliament deserves. that's what ukrainian people in particular today because they are suffering. they are in the war. so, they deserve very, very clear message and the message

which needs to end because somebody whispers something to somebody, you know? somebody behinds that, yes, we don't go very far in giving protection from whatever there is sub sub versesive operations and the event does not happen, that might spell in blood because people start fighting, believing there is somebody behind them like those so-called pro-russian militia, they are fighting there believing that the red army stands ready on the border, which is probably true. so, i tend to believe it's true. so, that is one thing. the other thing, if you promise something to people and you fail, better not promise. they will do themselves. i'm pretty sure that russian

people haven't said its final word yet. there will be a democratic revolution or continuation of democratic process in russia sooner or later. maybe after the old -- good a little bit down because petro dollars can buy everything including former chancellors. >> i think we have time -- >> so, we will do it ourselves but don't deceive people. >> i think we have time -- i was good together say for one but let's take two if you boast ask your question and get the panel to address them. so the young lady there and the woman here in blue. >> i imlaura. my question is, in light of the ukraine crisis it has pointed to the weakness in the security plan of the west and of nato and it also indicated that russia

still has influence in many of the countries in the caucus caucuses and eastern europe. so what should nato do to ensure the -- ensure and reinforce the territoryat integrity of countries like ukraine and georgia who have proven they are in fact nato allies. >> and the second question as well. >> apparently russia has called for u.n. security council meeting today to discuss ukraine. me question is very simple. what can they hope togyn from this move? apparently the u.s. doesn't support it. >> who would like to tackle these two questions first? jamie? >> yes. on the first question, we have to be clear, when it comes to military -- the security guard, the article 5 republic of nato, which is why countries join nato in order to have that.

so ukraine is not a nato ally. it's true it's a partner and very close partner and in fact participated in nearly -- in fact all of natos operations, including afghan, and therefore we're treating the partnership seriously. in answer to a previous question we have teams at the moment in ukraine, helping with defense reform, defense prestructuring, with reform of the television services and all of the things was pointing to that we need to do to help make ukraine a more resilient straight. a very strong culture with georgia. and we're helping moldova, operating real estates with -- so those partners are receiving assistance from nato but we have to be clear the article v extends only to nato allies, and that is what we're doing when it comes to reassure of packages. russia also has to play arole in

reassuring the countrieses of central and eastern europe and just coming back to what was said a moment ago, if i may very briefly because this is my last intervention. used to threaten these countries with -- regarding to the consequences of nato membership and there sovereign si in terms of what they were able to do that russia had a say in security affairs, drove them into the arms of nato and the more they became worried, became more determined to seek nato membership. so if russia wants to stay the in the neighborhood it has to see it in terms of either you are a vessel or enemy, it had to have a modern approach to security, and that's not what president putin is doing. >> ambassador. >> just very briefly. as a footnote to jamie's reply, in my view, what russia has been

doing in recent days and weeks is not really a demonstration of russian strength. it is more to me a demonstration of russian weakness. think for a moment what russia has already lost. colassal lost. loss of trust by all its neighbors. if president putin believes that this is the way for him to build the eurasian union of which he dreams, well, good luck. i imagine that president al leave

>> tomorrow we discuss common core, and "new york times" columnist jesse icinger on his article about criminal investigations of bankers after the 2008 financial crisis. pay washington journal" is live on c-span. >> when the women went off and became these incredible successes, they were the not only did they be the first women stockholders in the world -- to own a brokerage firm, not be repeated for 100 years. they had a radical newspaper. they became lecturerrers and spoke to 6,000 people and more. they were celebrities. they had headlines with just their names. like madonna or whatever. they were really very famous based on their beginnings with vanderbilt.

and the family just kept threatening them with blackmail. we're going to expose you what the past is like, and then the mother started this ridiculous court trial when she said that victoria's then-husband wanted to put her in an insane asylum or wanted to kill her and said that -- and so the press went wild, and wrote about this very trashy family, and it was the -- the sisters had been trying very hard, for two years, to hide all that and they were inventing and re-inventing. thes and were not at all the least bit educated but said they were. anything that would help them, they had moved on forward with. so they were willing to wreck their whole life just to get back into the fortunes, and had some really, really rotten characters in the family, which i address.

>> argues that two little remembered sisters changed american history and women's rights. sunday on c-span's q & a. this week the supreme court heard oral argument in the case of riley vs. california. the plaintiff, david riley, was convicted on several criminal counts based on evidence from a cell phone seized in a traffic stop. the supreme court will be deciding what kinds of fourth amendment protections should be stenned to data stored on smartphones. from tuesday, this is an hour. >> when your argument first this morning, case 13132, riley vs. california. mr. fisher. >> mr. chief justice. may it please the court. this case involves applying the core protection over the fourth

amendment to gnaw factual circumstance. it has always been the case that the occasion of an arrest did not give the police officers authority to search through the private papered and the drawers and bureaus and cabinets of somebody's house, and that protection should not evaporate more than 200 years after the founding because we have the technological development of smartphones that have resulted in people carrying that information in their pockets. >> just to test the principle for why the police can search and seize some objects, consider a gun, the arrestee has a gun on his person, and the police take the gun. is part of the reason for that seizure to obtain evidence of the crime or just for the safety of the officer and the safety of the community? >> what this coward said in robinson, page 235, the reason sporting the authority for searches incident to arrest or

two factors which are gathering evidence to prevent its destruction and officer safety. now -- >> i'm gathering evidence in order to make -- for instance, with the gun, could they take fingerprints -- the gun us in the police station when the arrestee is being booked. can they take fingerprints and could they copy the serial number, and could they see how many shells were left in the chamber? they obviously have to empty it for safety purposes. all for the purpose of building the case of obtaining evidence? >> yes, of course that's done every day. once the gun is in this police department's lawful possession, i think edwards says they can do that. >> so, if the proposition and if the principle, then, is that some objects that are obtained from the arrestee can be examined in order to build the state's case, is that at least a beginning premise that we can accept in your case, although

obviously there are problems of this extent and intrusiveness of the search that are in your case but not in the gun hypothetical. >> well, justice kennedy, the court never shrined that as one of the thinged. if you want to think about the case the way you thought about the automobile search in gant, it would be a beginning premise, but you're right even if that were a beginning premise it would be only that. a beginning, in footnote nine in edwards this court says any search incident to arrest has to satisfy the fourth amendment's general reasonableness. >> you're right that gant is probably the best statement in support of the principle i've suggested, and then you might say, that's limited automobile and then we're back where we started. >> right, there's important things to understand if you want to think about gant. both in terms of its history and its modern application, it's dramatically different from what we have here. >> mr. fisher, before we do that, have you been accurate in

what you said about robinson? and about the court's cases? in weeks which was quoted in robinson, the court said, the right always recognized under english and american law to search the person of the accused when legally arrested to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime. is that historically inaccurate do you want us to repudiate that? >> no, your honor. what weeks said -- you quoted it -- fruits and instrumentality of the crime has been something that can be seized from a person. now, weeks, as this court said in robinson, was dicta, and there was that historical authority to take fruits and evidence -- i'm sorry -- fruits and instrumentality. >> did it say instrumentalities or evidence? >> justice alito said evidence. you changed it to instrumentality. i it is wrong?

>> weeks used evidence but justice scalia because it was not an issue, the bishop treatise you cite fed your thornton concurrence talks about tools and instrumental its. i don't think we have to debate that here because even if we're in a world where the police can seize some evidence and keep and it use it for the prosecution simply for that rope, there's still very, very profound problems with searching a smartphone without a warrant, because even under the robinson rule this, court rex niced when it comes to blood draws, a strip search that might occur at the scene, there are limits even to the robinson rule. >> smartphones present difficult problems. suppose your lined were an old-school guy and didn't have a cell phone. he had a billfold. and he had photos that were important to him in the bill-fold. he had that at the time of arrest. do you dispute the proposition that the police could examine

the photos in his bill-fold and use those as evidence against him? >> no. that's the rule of robinson. that any physical item on an arrestee can be seized and inspected and then used as evidence if its use elf evidence. >> what is the difference between looking at hard copy photos in a billfold and looking at photos that are saved in the memory of a cell phone? >> the difference is digital information versus physical items. physical items at the scene can pose a safety threat and have destruction possibilities that aren't present with digital evidence. what is more, once you get into the digital world you have the framers' concern of general warrants and the writs of a -- >> how does that apply to the hard copy photos in the billfold. they don't present a threat to anybody. and i don't see there's much of a difference between government argues there's a greater risk of the destruction of digital

evidence in a cell phone than in the photos. i don't quite understand how that applies to that situation. >> let me take these one at a time. i take it the theory of-robinson, that the government self-propounded, any physical item because it could contain a razor blade or pin, needs to be inspected so yaw have a rule because of the ad hoc nature of arrest police don't have to distinguish one item from another. >> let's stick with justice a lito's hypothetical. they find a business card or something which shows a car rental service. can they turn the card over and read it? they're not looking for a pin or an explosive. they're trying to read what is on the card. can they do that? >> i think they can if nothing else under plain view. but i don't -- >> they turn the card over? >> i think that is fine under the categorical rule. what you have in robinson is a

categorical rule that on vie yates these case determines. you can make an argument, if it were a diary case or billfold case you might be able to make an argument but the think court wisely decided we need a rule that is easily administerrable in the field. when you have digital evidence the rule cuts the opposite. because digital information, even the notion of flipping through photos in a smartphone, implicates vast amounts of information, n jot the photos about the gps locationality data, all kinds of other informing that is intrinsically intertwined in smart phones. >> including information specifically designed to be made public. what about something like facebook or twitter account? there's no real -- any privacy interest in a facebook account is at least diminished bus the point is you want these things to be public and seen widely. my question would be could you

have a world that the police are entitled to search those apps that don't have an air of privacy about them? >> i think that would be extraordinarily difficult toad mr. that rule. let me tell you why. because most of the information on smartphones is private. much of it is just like the photos in this case, just kept on somebody's phone and not shared with anybody. even a facebook account is a limited universe of people who have access it to. >> you're right. more or less limited. many it's 20 people, maybe it's 100 people but certainly not private in the sense that many of the other applications are. >> i think it's fair to say you have a sliding scale, and there's some stuff on a phone that might be posted on the internet, for example, it the difficulty with that case if you want to address it in a future case would be, the inter2009ed -- intertwined information on a phone, gps information, all of this information is intertwined and i think you have a difficult

administerrability problem if you wanted to create a rule like that. remember, the government might try to deal with that problem differently by saying information in the cloud, so to speak, is not acceptable to officer -- accessible to officers. we suggest that further would compound the difficult toy of applying a rule. >> if you think we have to decide whether all the information that may be available in a smartphone can be examined by the police when they owner of the phone is arrested or can we just focus on the particular evidence that was admitted in your client's trial? >> the way you phrased the question, that's the first cut of this. looking at the particular pieces of evidence here which are photos and videos. but we don't think you can write an opinion that would distinguish those from anything else on -- almost anything else on a smartphone. the state's argument is those are not, quote, fundamentally different from other things that people would carry around --

>> due think -- the police could obtain a warrant? >> in all likelihood, yes, and they had plenty of time to do so. >> well, then, the evidence that is seizable under the warrant is reasonable, and justice awe lito points out the fact that some of this evidence is reasonable. there's a limitation with reference to the way the police believe as justice alito opinions out, limited just to this evidence. >> let me say a couple of important things about the warrant requirement and then return to just alito's question. the court has said the mere fact the police could have gotten a warrant and didn't does not excuse a fourth amendment violation. let me say one -- >> but it just goes to the fact that this is searchable under fourth amendment standards. >> with a warrant, justice kennedy, and let me talk about why a warrant is so important. first of all, interposes a

neutral observer in between the citizen and the police officer. perhaps more importantly it does two very big things. one is it can trigger the fourth amendment's particularity requirement so the magistrate can say, this what you can look at and not. in this case, the prosecution ultimately introduced photos and videos but that's not what the detective testified to at trial as the scope of his search. he said we looked at a whole lot of stuff on then phone and this is -- that's what just what in s words caught his eye. >> how would it work with the magistrate? you recognize he just told justice kennedy that a warrant would be obtained. a warrant for what? what would the police have to show? whether they have seized, which is -- the cell phone, they secured it, and now they want to search it.

so they apply for a warrant. and what would the warrant have to say? >> we give an example of a warrant in the footnote in our reply brief, footnote 3, justice ginsburg, and many more available on the web from states that require warrants. what they do is say they -- the police officer testifies, perhaps somewhat like he testified here at the suppression hearing issue suspected this fellow was in a gang and i believed gang members keep certain kinds of things on their phone. this is the kind of crime we're investigating and, therefore, these particular files within the find are likely to obtain evidence and then what happens is the warrants say with particularity here's what you can look at and what you can't-mow importantly justice. >> that's hard to figure out. what you can and what you can't. it's easy for a magistrate? but impossible for a -- for an arresting officer. >> much easier for a magistrate at some removed and an officer

under the stresses in the field. i agree it's not going to be perfect and let's look at what happens -- >> i'm just saying on the same lines, the point you make in the your argument the smartphone has everything, the person's whole life. well, if you're arresting somebody on the grounds of suspicion he's a gang member and you have evidence to support that. what part of the smartphone is not likely to have pertinent evidence? what application is not? here you have pictures, videos, calls. i just -- i guess it's similar to what other issues have been raised. i don't know what a magistrate is supposed to put in the warrant. >> i would say his banking app. >> you don't think his banking app is going to say on this day he deposited $10,000 into his account? >> well -- >> and then it's going to coincide with a particular drug deal. >> mr. chief justice. those argument can be made on an app by app basis.

what happens is, this is the bin fit of our rule as oposed to the government. the government says let the officer look and then have a back-end hearing where you suppress all the stuff he wasn't supposed to look at. under our rule, once the officer has the warrant, leon kicks in and so you dent have -- don't have to halve hearings because once an officer does a proper search you don't have to have a suppression hearing. one other important thing that goes into a warrant that may have been glossed over in the briefs. it's not what can be looked at. it it's how i conclude kept. by understanding in california, at least for some clients, not just that they're downloading and information and looking at it for the crime of arrest but keeping this information some databases, ever growing databases of ever cell phone -- >> what if you have a device that doesn't have they intoed information that a smartphone

has but only a very limited -- like a fit bit that tells you how many steps you have taken. the defendant says i've been any house all afternoon and they want to check and see if he walked four miles. it's not his whole life, which is a big part of your objection. is that something they can look at? issue. >> host: i think probably not and this the renull robinson that sweeps in the hypotheticals we were talking not one direction. a categorical rule in the other direction for digital information would sweep in -- i don't have to win that argument today, but i think that's how you would approach that question. remember, the fit bit -- this is true even more so, smart phones, tells you the kind of information the court was concerned about in kilo. it tell outside modern smartphone work the plains appliances and cameras and monitor the inside of people's bodies. >> what is the -- the phone in this case was an old fashioned flip phone so had the capacity to take pictures but a much more

limited memory. would it be a different case? >> i think you may want to -- at that time will be part of your conversation in the next case, perhaps. i think the easiest way to decide the case right now in 2014 is simply say, digital evidence kept on modern cell phones are different than physical items. i don't think it's really worth going back in time to the most rudimentary device -- >> what is if the person had is on his person a compact disk with photos on that. >> think that it might be in same kind of cases you have now. remember, the phone in this case had a removable memory card, which many still do, which we were going to talk about destruction of evidence. that's one answer to destruction of evidence problem. couldn't probable live have arisen with respect to the evidence at issue because it was on a removable memory card that

could not be erased remotely or password breaks. we have argued in our briefs that explains why the government's arguments a to wiping don't stand up -- >> mr. fisher, in an earlier question you didn't finish the answer. you were describing a difference between the downloading by police into databases that they keep forever. what happens with materials that are returned purr pursuant -- purr super to a search warrant. are they precluded? >> no. i take it the order rule the police lawfully seize evidence. if it's a physical item that might hat some pound have be to returned to the opener of it, but if it's something that can be made a photo copy of or a photo, remain inside police files, lawfully obtained information, they can use indefinitely into the future. you have real problems, over, when you apply that typical rule to digital information because now -- again, what i understand,

the government itself and the -- the federal government in footnote three of its reply brief acknowledges its keeping in an ever growing federal database at least some of the information seizees from smartphones. >> i'm sorry. i don't know you answered my question. >> maybe i didn't understand. >> can they do the same thing once a search warrant -- >> no, not necessarily. the beauty of a search warrant is it can delineate retension rules. it can say, here's how long you're allowed to keep the information. er who here who is 0 is allowed to look at and is not. >> i don't ever remember a prosecutor coming to me with that kind of delineation. >> i think that that is what is starting to happen in the digital world because we have new and different concerns than had arisen in the past. >> mr. fish we're there be exigencies that would allow police to look at cell phones and if so, what would they be? >> absolutely.

there would be times at the scene where exigencies would allow it. first of all, the two officer safety arguments the other side makes about a hypothetical bomb or confederate ambush. as this court already recognized in chadwick, exigent circumstances. the concern about remote wiping we think, and as the experted described in the amicus brief filed, would it arise to a situation where that was a legitimate concern -- in a very auld world, yes. >> i don't understand your first exigent circumstances. when there is a bomb? but you can't -- you don't know who whether is a bomb until you look in the phone. whether his associates are on the way to kill the officer and release their confederate? you don't know until you rook into the phone. how can that possibly be an exigent circumstance? >> i think surrounding facts and circumstances -- notnote nine in chat chadwick, dealing with a locked brief case, the same

problem, surrounding facts and circumstances might indicate there's a hypothetical on pain 1 of the amicus brief filed by the state investigative agencies. i think it's a classic textbook example how exigent circumstances might apply. >> steams to me almost never be able to say, you know, surrounding circumstances, give me reason to suspect there's a bomb in the phone -- >> no -- >> give me reason to suspect his confederates are on the way. >> i think you're right that's going to be an extraordinarily rare circumstance, all i'm saying is, if you had that extraordinarily rare circumstance you would not need to get a warrant. >> there's not much -- not much -- authority that i could find -- if the lawyers -- they want to read his whole brief case or -- and you cite, i think pain seven of your brief, the learned hand, 1916 case, is that about the best discussion you can find?

i didn't find anything much different. >> justice kennedy we looked high and low as well and did not find cases involving brief cases full of documents and there's only one or two stray mentions of a diary. judge friendly mentions the diary. >> it's important if we're going to try to formulate some standard which limits the extent of the search and that's one of the problems in this case if, say, we rule for the government in its case. maybe it's not quite fire to ask you but if we rule for the government in its case in worry, the federal case, and if it's not an exigent circumstance, is there some standard where we can draw the line which would still result in a judgment in your favor? maybe that's not quite a fair question. you're not answering -- arguing the government's case. >> i don't want to tread on the -- both lawyers but in my case we have an exploratory search where not even the state

has contented the amount of information looked at is equivalent to what somebody could have carried around in the old days. can i say something? >> i'm going to say something first. >> yes. >> if the phone rings can the police answer it? >> there are cases on that, mr. chief justice. obviously this court has not addressed them. all the cases we found are cases where the police already had a warrant in hand and they've been held to, yes, police officers can answer the phone in that circumstance. unquestionably the police officers could look at the -- >> a warrant for what? >> a for somebody's arrest? >> how does that step to your ability to answer the phone. >> i'm sorry. i think also to effect -- effectuate an rate and search of the area. you can look at the caller d. because that would be in plain view. if i can rush to the question about the diary. there's a couple of important

aspects to that. the reason i think that you don't find diary cases is because people hardly ever carry a diary outside the home with them. it was kept in the private drawer in the bedroom or wherever and the highly, highly unusual circumstance where somebody did you might have a hard case, this the opposite world. the modern reality of smartphones is indispensable tonight for everyday life of a mott concern professional and most anyone. you can't leave the house without and it be -- consider yourself to be responsible and safe and so you take -- to take the world where the police might try to say, we can get the stray diary because of the importance of the categorical rule under robinson and try to apply that in a world where everybody has everything with them at tall times -- >> including the criminal who are more dangerous and more sophisticated and eliassive with cell phones. that's the other side of this. >> justice kennedy, the fourth

amendment has a balance already built in that respect. we're not saying they can't look at digital information. they're saying when aseats it they can freeze the contents and get a warrant and search what they're allowed to search and keep it under the rules of the warrant. >> significant in this case that the information was not protected by a password? >> no. >> doesn't affect the expectation of privacy. >> if the other side were making an argument this wasn't even a search, then i think that might be an argument they would dereply but a i think they also agree that password protection doesn't matter and doesn't matter under their argument as to what information they get. their position is if we seize a corporate executive's smartphone at the scene that is locked and protected under password, if we can get that information out back at our lab, we get it all and we depth have to ask for a warrant and we can keep it -- >> i know they argue it doesn't matter. i'm just wondering if your position is weakened by the fact

the individual did not seek the greater protection of a password. >> i don't think so. people don't lock their homes or brief cases. sim police having it inside smart phone protected on the person is another to trigger the fourth amendment and i think to sustain the arguments i have advanced. if i can reserve the rest of my time. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. due mont. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. me a it please thecourt. -- the court. as mr. fisher has said, if mr. reilly had been carrying physical photographs in his pocket at the time of his arrest there was no dispute that arresting officers could have looked at the photographs to see whether they contain evidence of crime. now, what would a reasonable in that situation does not become constitutionally unreasonable simply because mr. reilly carries his programs in digital form on a smartphone. the shift digital photograph dove nose make the photographs --

>> in one of our decisions in the past, a series of justices asked, was -- or noted that many of our rules were based on practical considerations. practically speaking, a person can only carry so much. on their person. that is different because carrying a billfold of photographs is a billfold of photographs. it's anywhere from one to five generally-not much more, but now we're talking about potentially thousands. with digital cameras people take endless photos and it spans their entire life. you don't see a difference between the two things, what has now become impractical, a prior officers and cars didn't permit.

>> we certainly see the possibility that there could be a constitutional difference. we don't so the facts on this case like that. and there is a constitutional difference from those fun phenomenon. the theory is the photographs are likely to be personal and private so i am not sure the expansion increases the invasion of privacy. >> on your argument and the principle argument, too, a person can be arrested for anything. a person can be arrested for driving without a seatbelt. and the police could take that phone and look at every single e-mail that person has written

including work emails, including emails to family members and very intimate information and could look at their calendar, their gps and find out every place they had been because that person was arrested for driving without a seatbelt. that strikes me as a different kind of world than the kind of world you are describing where somebody has pictures of a family in a bill fold. doesn't it strike you that way? >> i think you can think of marginal cases where this would be of concern. >> i don't know why this is marginal. your argument applies to any arrest and everything on a cellphone. people have their entire lives on cellphone. that is not a marginal case. that is the world we live in.

>> he hear that repeatedly. the facts of this case are not entire lives on a cellphone. there were a handful of contacts. 250 contacts, 59 photos and there were perhaps 42 videos that range from 45 seconds. >> but the rule is for this category of case and this is, as pointed out, is taking on offense like failing to buckle up and driving under the influence, not gang crimes which is what we have in this case, it is your rule then that the cellphone is fair game no matter what the crime and no matter now

unimportant the crime is. all misdemeanors and that opens the world world to the police. >> it is true they will draw categorical lines and that is what the court said in robinson was happening and it is said the lines are based on the generality of the case. >> what i am trying to suggest to you is that you call it marginal but in fact most people now do carry their lives on cellphones and that will only grow as young people take over the world. that is not a marginal case. that is what their computers -- they have as much computing capacity as a laptop did five years ago. and everybody under the age of 40 has everything on them.

>> i think you need to look at the generality of cases. it will not be minor crimes, it will be serious crimes and you are dealing with police doing their job. > >> are you saying we are waiting on the discreation ary of the officer? >> we trying to draw lines applied by the officer in the field because there is not time for the warrant because they need to know the information no -- >> let's leave these circumstances out. that is an easy case. you are not arguing for that kind of circumstances here. >> i would say our argument is that the same things that mr. fischer conceived, the same interest concedes the seizure of the phone and the search of the people. that is need to protect

officer's safety and preserve evidence. you don't know with a phone whether there is a safety concern or evidence concern. >> is there any bases for the for the when the phone was used to trigger a device or anything like that? >> we don't have a specific case. we're like -- >> a civil case. >> i a case from california, called natoli. there's one where there's a late-night arrest. it's starts with the speeding ticket, and it -- off the away at night, it develops that maybe there's more going on. the person looks to be under the influence, taken out of the cart. might be a gun. the officer looks at the cell phone. the first thing he sees when he turns the phone on is the picture of what appears to be the driver, standing with two assault rifles o'ing. that changes the situational

awareness of the officer and provides valuable information that was necessary at the time and could not have been gotten later. >> what does that have to do with me question about a bomb? >> it's a -- the only thing had to do with safety. it can't bring you a case where they stopped him and looked at his phone and saw notes about bombmaking. >> i assume you need to operate the phone to set off the boom, so once the police have the phone, the bomb is not a going to be set off. >> that is true but at it also true of all the objects and all the court's prior cases -- once in robinson the police secured the cigarette pack there was in question whether there was razor blade flit or just heroin. the evidence was not going to be destroyed. >> can i ask you a question about the extent of your theory. we're talking about smartphones which are minicommuters. but your theirry would apply to ipads, computers, anything that is, for example, sitting next to

a person in a car, at their desk if they're arrested at their desk, anywhere if they're carrying it in their hand because you see a lot of people carrying the ipad or something comparable, a tablet of some sort. your theory would permit a search of all 0 those things. >> objects that are on the person or immediately associated with, for instance in a purse. doesn't necessarily extend to things sitting nearby. the court has drawn a clear line there. >> what is the rule? you're saying on the person. suppose it is in the car, in a holder, or in the passenger seat. are you saying that -- you want us to express an opinion about that? or talk about what is in somebody's pocket? >> i'll say the court has drawn different rules for the situation. on the car seat and if the person has been removed from this the

car, under gant if there's reason to think there might be a crime on the phone they can search it, if not they can't. >> what is -- stop carrying my laptop in my backpack, if your it's on your back, yes. let me go back to the volume question. two thing about a cell phone that might justify a special rule. the volume question and then there's the connection different and networking question. as to the volume question. we don't really have it here but i concede that it could happen in other cases and what they seem too be really concerned about is the idea if you have inform information on the device and the police spend enough time looking at it they could build a remarkable portrait that some of the justices alluded to in gant -- sorry -- in jones -- that it was qualitatively d thrift. jones was government surveillance and this is a

choice a person kept information on a phone and then to have it in his possibility. there's a possibility you could get to that different search but it is miles away from this pace and from the heartland -- >> so what's your rule? >> i have a rule -- >> three possibilities. possibility one, smartphone. no. get a warrant. unless exigent circumstances. possibility two, yes, it's just like a piece of paper. that you find in his possible can, on possibility three, sometimes yes, sometimes no. which of those three is yours? >> our position is that the core information like this that is contact -- >> my three choices. i mean, called, never except exigent without a pointer, always, you don't need a warrant, or, three, somewhere in between. which is the three choices is your. >> in between with an explain sayings. >> my followup question is,

please tell me what your in between rule is. >> right. and my in between rule with the explanation is that for information that is of the same sort that police have always been able to seize from the person, that includes diaries, letters, all other kinds of evidence, pure evidentiary -- photographs, address books. for evidence of that same sort, the same rule should apply -- >> i don't understand that. >> and i would leave for a different day but the last explanation i would leave for another case -- >> in due innocent -- >> i'm sorry, justice kagan -- >> i guess i just don't understand -- you said if it could be. everything could be reduced to a piece of paper or your bank records you could have them on you, or your medical records you could just happen to have them on you. that would be so of absolutely everything, wouldn't it? >> the bank records the police can get from the bank because they're the bank's records with

a subpoena, not with a search warrant. >> the notion you could get them legally in some other way has never justified an illegal search otherwise. >> no but it goes to the question is how sensitive is the information we're being told is now -- >> your rule is sometimes. i say sometimes. and you say if it's the kind of thing that the police could have searched for if it wasn't on the computer, then they can search for it on the computer. since they can search for everything in your pockets, before -- when it is in the computer, why isn't yours everything? i mean, by the way, they don't know whether a call is or is not going to turn out to be evidence when it in your trash box, or wherever you put it. i don't know. they don't know that until they read it. so i guess what you're saying is, i thought it was category two sometimes, but really its

category three, always. why aim -- why am i wrong? >> i think hi d inverted two and three. [laughter] >> that gives you time to think. ... the address book, the contacts, and the phone -- >> that is just the concession on your part isn't it? because the smartphones carry a lot of information that the police couldn't look at before. gps tracking information. are you saying that is protected? >> i am saying it raise as different set of issues. >> it seems to me that in order

to try to give answers to justice kegan's concern is maybe sears -- serious and non-serious? >> i think the court did deny to draw that line >> gps information -- my wife might put a little note in my pocket. steven remember to turn right at the third stoplight. of course you could have looked at information that showed where you had been and where you were going as long as it was on paper. now it is in a gps so how does your rule help? the gps sees if he didn't turn right or went somewhere else. we can conceive of information in which the amount of information and the kind of

search would lead to a different result. >> you can amend your answer. and the answers are for you not for us. but you could amend your answer to say not just anything that somebody could have had. a person could have had a diary that records every place the person has every gone in the last year. it is possible. but you could say something that has a realistic analog in the pre-digital era. we have a problem that is similar to the problem of the jones gps case. you have a rule of law before the digital era and now to apply it to the digital era. but if there is an analog that might be a different story.

>> we think that covers the issues here with the video and paragraphs. >> you are not willing to limit your position to searches that either are in order to protect the officer or in order to preserve evidence or number three in order to find evidence of a crime of arrest. you would say whatever is on the person you can search? >> we think of the available limits. that is by far the most historically based. the old cases you point out -- >> that gets you into the arrest for not wearing a seatbelt. it seems absurd you should be able to search that person's i-phone and you can avoid that if you say the vast majority of

cases this isn't going to be a problem unless the officer is looking for evidence of the crime of arrest. that would cover the bad cases and not the seatbelt rule. >> we think that could be good rule. it has to be objective and shouldn't depend on what was written on the booking sheet. it should be was there probably cause to arrest or what crime was there probably crimes to arrest for. and it also should include a plain view concept. >> there is an analog with photos. the arrested person has photos. pre-digital age of course you can look at them. on the phone, there are photos, absolutely analogous except there are 10,000 and his entire life history. on your rule, can the policeman look at the photos by analog or

not because there are 10,000? what is the answer? >> in theory yes. i think there are very few things you cannot find in analog, too in pre-digital age searches and the problem in almost all instances is quantity and how far a field you are likey to be going. >> the fundamental rational base of the robinson rule, i think, is that the fact of the arrest, this is what justice powell said -- the fact of the arrest necessarily and legitimately abates the privacy interest of the individual and anything she has chosen to kercarry on the

person. the reasonable expectation is that the police searches the person and -- >> are you saying essentially that no body has expectation of privacy or somebody has a reduced expectation of privacy in anything the person wants to keep on them. in other words, one has to keep a cellphone at home to have an expectation of privacy in it? >> we are not saying that. but people make choices and they have consciouss and the consequences of carrying it on your personal the police has always been able to use it as crime. >> thank you, councilor. >> i think it maybe helpful to the court before exploring

possible alternatives to a ro n robinsrobi robinson rule is to understand why there is a categorical robsrobi robinson rule. it responds to the fact when a person is carrying something them their expectation of prives privacy is reduced. and the government has compelling interest that is vindicated during the time of arrest. it protects the officer and protects evidence relevant to the prosecution. >> the understanding was when there is time get a warrant.

here you can seize the phone and secure there phone. you could go to a magistrate and within an hour get permission to search. but what is the reason for cutting out the magistrate here? it isn't the instrument that is going to be danger because the police have taken it. and they disabled it. so i don't understand why we cut the warrant out of the picture. >> several answers to that. you could say the same thing about everything that is seized under robinson and edwards. once it is in the police's hands they could throw it in the back of the car and get a warrant. but the balance is struck at the moment of arrest to allow the officer to fufill the compelling interest in the matters i described. the second and critical thing about cellphones is they do

differ in the amount of information you can put on the and the revelation about your life. but they contain evidence, and they are subject to destruction in a way that ordinary physical items are not. even though an officer has a cellphone in his hand he cannot guarantee unless discunenonnecd there is not a remote wipe case where it is wiped from the phone. >> do you have cases of that? >> i have an dotal reports from the fbi that happened. they are looked into the extent of what extent can you protect the phone. if you throw a phone into a bag that will block network signals. when you open it, it has to be shielded or pick up the phone from a cell tour and wipe the

phone. the fda tried to build a room similar to this in a building where they discovered verizon put out a cell tower and it put up enough signal where it was wi wip wiped. >> there is a rule in michigan and vermont where you cannot search and are there instances from that case where this happened? >> i cannot speak to that. >> you don't know. isn't this a problem that might be postponed because we have worrying technology. and you are saying we should allow searches of all cell phones because there maybe a technology that hasn't yet in fact been used in any of the states that have this rule. that sounds a little hypothetic and i am not sure how to handle it. >> there is clearly the technology available and growing technology to wipe phones

remotely. but the other critical problem that comes about getting the warrant is encryption technology is being deployed in cellphones. that is on the rise. if a phone is turned off or the lock kicked in and the phone is encrypt it can be impossible -- >> let me stop. i have three related questions. why can't you put the phone on airpla airplane mode? >> it not always possible to mind the mode on the 500-600 phones. the officer has a lot to do when he arrest five suspects and say they have three phones. >> if you haven't searched on the scene then the wipe is going

to happen. if you had enough time at the prestinct to put on airplane mode. either you do it at the scene or the station and you have enough time to get the warrant by putting it on that mode. >> well you don't necessarily have enough time to get the warrant if you do it at the scene. >> i don't disagree. put it on airplane mode. >> the assumption that the court should craft a rule around airplane modes assuming that airlanes will be able to used that the plane and they will make the button. >> i don't disagree with you. but you are asking for a constitutional principle based on technology that might or might not do something in one or more cases. >> i think what i am trying to

suggest is the traditional search and arrest include the search of destruction of evidence. that is very real. we are asking for the application of the robinson rule and if the court isn't willing to apply the robinson rule than i think the best rule to apply -- >> that is not quite accurate. what would you do under the robins robinson's rule with an attorney's brief case. >> it would present problems -- >> and doesn't that present the problem every cellphone has. >> i was referring to the privilege rule. the lower courts that have looked at the question that say if a person is arrested hold in a briefcase they can go through and look for evidence that is

relevant for criminal activity. they do that in a way that is minimumal minimumally invasive. >> some cell phonphones have th record and you have the tax record of the jaywalker. >> if the court is looking for a rule that limits the ability to search cellphones because they are different from paper items, in some respect, but not all, that the most reasonable rule to apply would be one that says when there is reason to believe there is evidence of the crime of arrest on the phone the officers can look for that. when there is not, they can't. >> can i ask you a question about that? given the variety of things these cell phones have in them, it seems as though that is, you know, it sounds good as a limiting principle, but it ends

up -- you can imagine in other case, that the police could look at everything. i will give you an example. somebody is arrested for a gun crime. and now we are going to look at all of the various things related to a gun crime. whether he has bought guns, done searches for gun stores, his emails might say something about gun possession or purchase, he might have photographs of him with a gun -- you know? the whole range of things could relate to that crime, couldn't it? >> justice kagan, i would acknowledge your reasoning is correct. it would not be the case of a jaywalking crime or a bar fight or minor crimes like seatbelt violations that are on the other side of the equation for respondants or petitioner's n

narrow response to cellphone searches. in a serious offense like a firearm case or in in this case a drug offense case, if the police got a warrant they would look at the same thing. the only way to execute the warrant on the phone is engaging in a search on the phone >> well they would be looking at the same thing but the whole idea of a warrant is the magistrate says you can look and has a way to limit it in whatever way they feel is appropriate and that is a protection. >> i would not go sure to say the magistrate with narrow the warrant. they say it isn't appropriate for the magistrate to prescribe the manner of the search. there is a different balance at the moment of the arrest. at that moment's society's

interest are in locating evidence to the crime and arresting suspects and the suspect has a highly reduced privacy interest. >> four minutes mr. fischer. >> thank you. i think i heard 4-5 proposed rules i would like to go through. the state talked about the fundamentally different rule and i think the justice figured out that would sweep in everything on the phone. ... ...

also a discussion about the exigency at the scene of an arrest, needing to prevent a password from kicking in. the first thing to make sure you understand is those arguments can apply only at the scene. they don't apply in this case where an officer take thursday phone back to the police station and two hours later searches through it at his leisure. so, all the arguments about, at the scene, and what the officer needs to be able to do at the scene is left for another case. and justice breyer is exactly right, at the very best the government has shown tightly --

a quick thing on the password, pages 12 to 14 of our reply brief we outline how highly unusual at a factual matter it would be for a smartphone to be seized while it's still unlocked and for an officer not to be able to address concern at the scene it might lock later and it's also worth noting in a footnote the government is arguing arguing in lower cowers that even if it does log the fifth amendment does nose give the person the opportunity to refuse to divulge the password. justice kennedy suggested the possible of distinguishing between serious and nonserious offenses. with all due respect this court's decisions in robinson and atwater preclude that kind of determination for all the reasons the government argued in

those cases. finely, justice scalia, you mentioned a couple of times the gant principle. evidence that you think you might find on the phone. there's two profound problems with that. the first is, as the court recognized in kilo you need to be sure to protect the privacy people at the founding, and is a said in my opening the fact that somebody might incidentally have an item on his person, even in the rare case, diary or address book, are leagues away from the kind of information that people have that were stored in the home and were sack -- sack crow sanctity in an arrest. and justice kagan, the government might be able to identify a crime that would be difficult to make an argument, but lots of mine you're crimes -- minor crimes, like speeding, dui, littering, a

person can milwaukee a convincing argument that evidence on the phone would be relevant to that crime. so i think that brings me where i want to end, which is understanding what the rule the government propounds would do in terms of ordinary police work. this case starts with a traffic stop for expired license plate. it is everyday police work that traffic stops are the beginning of criminal investigations some a leverage point into searches. if you adopt the rule that says, even a gant rule, that says if you can make an argument that evidence on the phone would be relevant to the crime of arrest, take the suspended license. you may have on i'm from the dmv telling you to renew. if that opens up every american's life to the police department, not just at the scene but the station house and downloaded into their computer forever, you'll have fundamentally change the privacy that we have enjoined since the

the democrats, particularly minority democrats.

the one that has a large percentage of african-american voters the they can insure they have representation in congress. >> this week in the c-span2 from the anti-defamation league. saturday morning just after 11 eastern. and later on c-span2 the white house correspondents' dinner. president obama and john mchale of nbc community headline the event before celebrities, journalists and and the white house press corps live it 6:00. live sunday former gang member temecula the activists and political candid will take your calls and comments had been on c-span2. and on american history to the history of wine in the sugar industry. sunday night

where mystery in denver. but what makes august 25th street somewhat unique is the fact that it is right in the middle of a mormon settlement. you had on the one hand the mormon people's party which was struggling to retain control of the city. on the other hand you had the railroad which was the economic lifeblood of the city ahead which was bringing in non mormons with swelled the ranks of the liberal party and the railroads was leveling the playing field. yet that irony. so with the hotels and

restaurants here at the depot and the hotel three blocks east of here the three blocks between them began to fill in slowly with boardinghouses and saloons and what those and even some opium dens. people who came through here were interested in past times that were quite different than those of mormon culture

does he have noticed in the past six months is been a new wave of light energy emanating from the fcc. sounding the clarion call for a new american revolution, a seasoned and visionary chairman has taken the reins, and to test his agency and stimulated a wide ranging debate of or have best to bring the opportunities of the digital era to all americans. for some of you in the audience to date the jolt that activity is no surprise. you may have known as chairman when he was one of the young

wildcats hoping that to open the marketplace for companies like yours and mine. tom wheeler runs our industry's regulatory agency with arguably more telecom related experience under his belt than any fcc chairman of the modern era. he has been involved with new networks and services as a policy expert, advocate, businessman, an entrepreneur from one in three decades. for president and ceo of our association and served in the same role of the wireless association. his efforts in both of those jobs and in a unique status does the only person to be selected to both the cable hall of fame in the wireless oliphant. tom also has served as managing director at venture-capital firm , ceo of several high-tech companies as the internet was being invented and popularized

and was a dedicated public servant even before his fcc tenure. president obama and managing for the present the conclusion of the dtb transition. please join me in welcoming back to this podium, back to ins dca in back to the killers of the chairman of the federal communications commission the hon. tom wheeler. [applause] >> thank-you, ron. it is great to be here, and i also want to let the accident indicate and i'm not here alone. that joining us this gathering are all of the members of the fcc, and you will be hearing from commissioner cliburn, rosen

was so, pi, and commissioner who what they have to share with you , both insightful and helpful . asher am grateful to be allowed to work with the. i did intended to of this with someone been to about being back it is a serious issue that i want to address red wine, and that is the future of the internet. i want to specifically direct these remarks in you, the principal providers to the nation's broad band and connectivity. and we and circulated a notice

of proposed rulemaking to my fellow commission in the that would protect and promote the two things that it's important to understand. first, this is a notice which asks and sikhs in put on the best ways to protect and promote the of the inner. second, all options are on the table. our goal is to put in place real protection for consumers, real protection for innovators and entrepreneurs the resolve what

has, until now, but only a matter of debate and litigation. i believe that this process will put us on track to up quickly get to legally enforceable open internet rules. i'm interested in results. we've been trying to do something for almost a decade. it's time to get the job finished. we have been waiting long enough . the clerk it was become a principal provider of broadband. this is inappropriate for the discussions of intentions. if you read some of the press accounts first them what we propose to do, those who oppose

the idea of that neutrality might feel like a celebration is in order. reports that are getting the open internet incorrect. and here to say to you, wait a minute and put away the party hats, the open internet will will be tough, and forcible and with the concurrence of my colleagues will be in effect with dispatch. for all of the millions of americans to access the internet and to you provide broadband connectivity it is only fair to

spell out some of the expectations that were informed first half. the d.c. circuit's in the rise in the fcc decision upheld the commission's judgment that absent such rules such as those set forth in the open internet order prod brand providers represent a threat to enter that openness and could act in ways that would ultimately in it did this be and extent of future broadband deployment. my belief that innovation is fragile and that as we said in our 2010 order broadband

providers have incentives to interfere with competing bids providers and as the d.c. circuit rule have powerful incentives to accept fees from its providers either in return for excluding their competitors or for granting them prioritized access to end users. our proposed course of action builds on the accords strong legal justification for regulation that guarantees every user the ability to effectively use the internet. we are beyond the question of the scope of the fcc's authority

the court has decided that. knowing that authority we must now move expeditiously to make it manifest. there has been a great deal of talk about how our following the court's instructions to use a commercially reasonable test could result in a so-called fast lane, and internet haves and have-nots. this misses the want. any knew rule will assure an open pathway that is sufficiently robust to enable consumers to access the content, services, and applications that they demand and innovators and

edge providers will have the ability to offer new products and services. put another way, the proposed that the focus of this proposal on which i remind you we are seeking comment is on maintaining a broadly available, fast, and robust internet as a platform for economic growth and innovation, competition, free expression, and broadband investment and upon the. our goal is rules that will encourage broad band providers to continually upgrade service for all. we will follow the court's

blueprint for achieving this. and i must warn you that we will look skeptically upon special exception. been thought you know, as ron said, it has been 30 years since i last stood on the stage. during that time i have built new technology-based company's and help other companies grow as a venture capitalist. i know in my home how hard it is to start a company with innovative ideas. now as chairman of the fcc i do not in to allow innovation to be strangled by the manipulation of the most important network of

our time, the internet. if an entrepreneur and an investor, i understand the importance of supplying businesses with certainty. that is another reason why the sooner that we can get enforceable rules in place the better off everyone will be. you need a entrepreneurs and those who support them neat that certain knowledge that there ability to get to market will not be degraded by manipulation of the internet. let me be clear, if someone acts to divide the internet between haves and have-nots bomb, we will use every power at our disposal to stop it.

and i consider that that includes the title to. just because it is my strong belief that following the court's road map will produce similar protections more quickly does not mean that i will hesitate to use title to if warranted, and in our notice we are asking for input as to whether this approach should be used. now, since we're in los angeles let me use highway traffic metaphor. prioritizing some traffic by forcing the rest of the traffic onto a congested lane won't be permitted under any proposed open and travel.

we will not allow some companies to force internet users into a slow lane so that others with special privileges have superior service. consumers have rightfully come to expect quality access to all points on the internet. blocking access to lawful content and services would be inconsistent with that transaction that made in your subscriber sh. the bottom line and the proposed open engine and rules is that the internet will remain an open pathway. if users cannot effectively use the pathway, then the conduct will be a violation for the open

internet rules. no, i do not expect that the debate will end here today, and i don't want it to. we are moving quickly to keep up the issues and to invite discussion and debate, but we are moving the process forward. so now that i have addressed the topic that is on the front of everyone's mind, let me refer to my favorite activity, historical reflection. and to a theme that encapsulates my perspective on your industry, namely from those to whom much is given much is expected. in my professional lifetime this industry has gone from 9/11 to

two. one was about video. the industry along with dbs enabled an enormous expansion in the quantity of quality of video content. the record provides substantial reason for industry pride, although in the celebration should be tempered by continuing criticisms involving both price and service. today's cable two-point no industry is different in two significant ways. first, it is now the incumbent. when i was here cable was the insurgent. second, first as we have been discussing it has transformed from video to broadband. the move from cable one to two was accompanied by an almost unimaginable change in cables

regulatory circumstance. it is going from regulatory constraints that were breathtakingly in getting to regulatory constraints that are barely discernible. in my present line of work i encounter people who believe that the fcc broadband deregulation was equivalent to the discovery of fire and the invention of the wheel. and others believe that it was the equivalent of our original san. i don't propose to join that debate today, or to attempt to sort out whether deregulation and levels of cable investment in broadband are causal or coincidental.